starman

Policing and Crime bill, 3rd reading

23 posts in this topic

sounds like the anti-brigade will now lobby for, just like it said in the BBC article, something similar to the Forced Marriage Act and that psychological manipulation should be taken into account...sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right to be suspicious?

Are the recent amendments introduced by JS a clever ploy to get this bill through?

Once a Bill is passed by the HoC, HoL and has received royal assent it becomes an Act.

Is there some mechanism whereby the government can then make modifications to an Act without further reference to Parliament? Obviously if this is the case they could easily change its meaning by removing certain words or phrases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I right to be suspicious?

Are the recent amendments introduced by JS a clever ploy to get this bill through?

Once a Bill is passed by the HoC, HoL and has received royal assent it becomes an Act.

Is there some mechanism whereby the government can then make modifications to an Act without further reference to Parliament? Obviously if this is the case they could easily change its meaning by removing certain words or phrases.

using a statutory instrument is the only way I know of

a bill pass through Parliament and become an Act of Parliament, the Act could contain a broad framework only and statutory instruments are used to provide the necessary detail that would be considered too complex to include in the body of an Act, eg levels of fines or penalties for offences.

Secondary legislation can also be used to amend, update or enforce existing primary legislation if such a power has been given to Ministers by the parent Act

Here is an excellent example:

Don't call the barmaid 'love', by order of Harriet Harman

The regulations were pushed through by Women and Equalities Minister Harriet Harman, who has powers under European legislation to amend discrimination law.

Miss Harman has used a statutory instrument that does not require a division or debate in Parliament.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-550808/Dont-barmaid-love-order-Harriet-Harman.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These three Conservatives should never be voted for ever again.

John Bercow Buckingham

John Gummer Suffolk Coastal

Edward Leigh Gainsborough

And These Labour party members can be counted on for support.

Clare Short Birmingham, Ladywood whilst Ind Lab

Diane Abbott Hackney North & Stoke Newington Lab

Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab

David Drew Stroud Lab

Frank Field Birkenhead Lab

Neil Gerrard Walthamstow Lab

Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab

Brian Iddon Bolton South East Lab

Glenda Jackson Hampstead & Highgate Lab

Lynne Jones Birmingham, Selly Oak Lab

John McDonnell Hayes & Harlington Lab

Alan Simpson Nottingham South Lab

Mike Wood Batley & Spen Lab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the last month as a whole in politics and not just at this wretched Bill, with its provisions on DNA retention as well as on prostitution and lap dancing, I find myself very impressed by John McDonnell:

8.45 PM

'May I just say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is no way to run a country, is it? We have had two hours of debate on amendments and about 15 more amendments will not even be discussed. We are talking about the prospect of legislation that will put prostitutes' lives at risk and will allow people to be arrested, detained and deprived of their liberty. We have had two hours, and that is all. I say to the Government that we cannot go on like this with criminal justice legislation.'

It really is no way to run a country...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These three Conservatives should never be voted for ever again.

John Bercow Buckingham

John Gummer Suffolk Coastal

Edward Leigh Gainsborough

And These Labour party members can be counted on for support.

Clare Short Birmingham, Ladywood whilst Ind Lab

Diane Abbott Hackney North & Stoke Newington Lab

Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab

David Drew Stroud Lab

Frank Field Birkenhead Lab

Neil Gerrard Walthamstow Lab

Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab

Brian Iddon Bolton South East Lab

Glenda Jackson Hampstead & Highgate Lab

Lynne Jones Birmingham, Selly Oak Lab

John McDonnell Hayes & Harlington Lab

Alan Simpson Nottingham South Lab

Mike Wood Batley & Spen Lab

suprised to see clare short as being supportive as, many years ago (1988) her response to my suggestion that prostitution be legalised was:"this is a presumption that men have the right to take and demand sex"

perhaps she wants to get back at the labour govt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see Fiona MacTaggart is as mad as ever.

"........the aim is to deter demand and ensure that those who would seek to pay an exploited woman for sex should obey the rule for any buyer anywhere: caveat emptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice to see Fiona MacTaggart is as mad as ever.

"........".

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak, Labour)

My hon. Friend is arguing that the Government's proposals as amended by her would help to keep women safe and help victims of trafficking. Could she cite evidence that the laws in Sweden have been effective in doing that? She gave no information on that point. Have the laws in the countries that she has named been subject to reviews of their effectiveness, as has been the case in New Zealand, which she has not cited, but where completely the opposite approach has been adopted?

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour)

Those laws have indeed been subject to such review. There is quite clear evidence from research showing the extent to which there has been a reduction in trafficking in Sweden. I cannot find the citation, which is buried somewhere in this heap of paper, but I will send it to my hon. Friend by e-mail

Lynne Jones will have to wait a year for the e-mail:

Sweden to evaluate effects of prostitution law

The inquiry is expected to deliver its findings no later than April 30th, 2010

later Fiona says:

".... I have quite specifically compared us to similarly diverse and similarly densely populated European countries that, I believe, have stronger lessons for Britain. "

erm, Sweden is twice the size of Britain and has only 9 million inhabitants, the population denisty is infact similar to New Zealand.

Germany however, which she hasn't compared with, has almost exactly the same population density as the UK.

see pg. 6 Population density OECD countries

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-05-19a.1423.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also liked her half baked admission that she lost the argument on "control for gain" including maids etc. I noted that she didn't say she was wrong, just that she'd lost the argument. A subtle but, for her I guess, face-saving difference.

Also loved Evan Harris saying she was entitled to her own opinions but not her own facts. Funny as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also liked her half baked admission that she lost the argument on "control for gain" including maids etc. I noted that she didn't say she was wrong, just that she'd lost the argument. A subtle but, for her I guess, face-saving difference.

Also loved Evan Harris saying she was entitled to her own opinions but not her own facts. Funny as hell.

Keith Vaz is spot on, but she gives a rahter clever answer

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest and passion in the subject. However, she has clearly not had the opportunity to read the Home Affairs Committee report into human trafficking, which we published last Thursday, following a year-long investigation. The best way to stop demand is to stop the women from being trafficked into the country. That means going to the source countries. Once those women get here, it is too late. My hon. Friend's complaint is actually against prostitution. It is not about human trafficking; she just wants to stop prostitutes.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My right hon. Friend is using an inaccurate definition of trafficking. Trafficking does not require people merely to be transferred across a border. Rather, trafficked women are often moved around within countries. There are women trafficked from Glasgow to Nottingham, Slough or London daily. We therefore cannot simply deal with such gross exploitation and violence towards women by protecting women from Romania or Thailand; we have to protect the women in our own communities who are trafficked and exploited through violence, pimping and abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before last week I was thinking how much is a ticket to Amsterdam.

I used to, before it was shut down, visit an oriential establishment. Different girl each time, most I suspect not volunteers. I will steer clear of those places in future, if they still exist.

If I am presented with a girl who is definately not the full quid I will make my excuses and leave. The amendment from the forced marriage act is there to cover Asian girls who are matched up with the village idiot who has been brought over.

I hope if it appears that a girl has been forced, coerced e t c, a no recommendation is put in field reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a general election before a bill reaches the third reading in the Lords does it get abandoned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before last week I was thinking how much is a ticket to Amsterdam.

I used to, before it was shut down, visit an oriential establishment. Different girl each time, most I suspect not volunteers. I will steer clear of those places in future, if they still exist.

If I am presented with a girl who is definately not the full quid I will make my excuses and leave. The amendment from the forced marriage act is there to cover Asian girls who are matched up with the village idiot who has been brought over.

I hope if it appears that a girl has been forced, coerced e t c, a no recommendation is put in field reports.

I hope if it appears that a girl has been forced, coerced etc, you phone crimestoppers!!! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Vaz is spot on, but she gives a rahter clever answer

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest and passion in the subject. However, she has clearly not had the opportunity to read the Home Affairs Committee report into human trafficking, which we published last Thursday, following a year-long investigation. The best way to stop demand is to stop the women from being trafficked into the country. That means going to the source countries. Once those women get here, it is too late. My hon. Friend's complaint is actually against prostitution. It is not about human trafficking; she just wants to stop prostitutes.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My right hon. Friend is using an inaccurate definition of trafficking. Trafficking does not require people merely to be transferred across a border. Rather, trafficked women are often moved around within countries. There are women trafficked from Glasgow to Nottingham, Slough or London daily. We therefore cannot simply deal with such gross exploitation and violence towards women by protecting women from Romania or Thailand; we have to protect the women in our own communities who are trafficked and exploited through violence, pimping and abuse.

Guys you're going to hate me but I think in years to come she will become like Clare Short and change her hardened stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any legislation has not received Royal Assent by the time Parliament is dissolved then it fails if there is a change of government. Unless of course the previous opposition has supported it.

The Lords can reject legislation twice and the Commons will then use the Parliament Act to force it through.

The latest rumour is a general election in October. I suspect so Gordon Brown can avoid a stormy party conference and step down quietly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not time for the government to use the Parliament Act to force any of this legislation through. If they, through amendment, lose what they would like here there isn't time to do anything about it this side of an election. They would need a couple more years to use the Parliament Act.

I think this law has now been made into a paper tiger. The new 'force, deception etc' definition of the offence, even (or perhaps especially) with the addition of the 'exploitiation of vulnerablity' clause, unlike the 'controlling for gain' offence that was originally planned, does not match an offence that a pimp or other third party can be convicted of.

In order to convict a client of sex with someone who is subjected to 'force, deception ... etc including exploitation of vulnerability', you are going to have to prove that someone originally did that to the sex-worker(s) concerned. That is basically a conviction for sexual enslavement or something close to it, not 'controlling for gain' ... or would be if there were not this extra bit about 'exploitation of vulnerability'. How can you prove that if there is no such offence for the 'third party' to be convicted of? Remember, it has to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a court of law, and if no third party has been convicted of doing this, because there is no such matching offence, how do you prove that?

In order to make this law workable, they are going to either change the definition of 'controlling for gain' in the original Sexual Offences Act 2003 to match this new wording, or introduce another new seperate offence for 'third parties' to match the offence for a client. They won't change the 'controlling for gain' definition, because it is meant to be vague so that it can be used to victimise people in various unpredictable ways, but introducting a new offence for pimps. etc other than 'control for gain' will confuse things even more and open up another can of worms.

My guess is that the police, and indeed the PCS, may look at this law - if it is not changed again to make it logically consistent - (which at least the original proposal was!), and conclude that it is unenforcable because it is incomprehensible. No one can prove that a client had sex with a sex-worker who was subject to actions by a third party that do not match an actual known offence by that third party? How can that be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' - i.e. to a criminal standard of proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lords can reject legislation twice and the Commons will then use the Parliament Act to force it through.

The Parliament Act does not apply in this situation as by convention it is only used when the legislation was mentioned in the Governing party's election manifesto.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Parliament Act does not apply in this situation as by convention it is only used when the legislation was mentioned in the Governing party's election manifesto.

B

Still wouldn't put it past this shower of illegitimates to try it any way;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now